Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2009-06-04 15:05:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP)",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"1526772\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, before question period I was on my feet speaking about Bill <a data-HoCid=\"3686569\" href=\"/bills/40-2/C-15/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts\">C-15</a>, which brings about mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offences, most of which already incur a life sentence. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526773\" data-originallang=\"en\">Instead of having judicial discretion, which has been exercised for many decades in this country on the issue of drug offences with certain exceptions, as my colleague from <a data-HoCid=\"128527\" href=\"/politicians/joe-comartin/\" title=\"Joe Comartin\">Windsor\u2014Tecumseh</a> pointed out earlier in his remarks, most of the drug offences have a range of sentencing which the judiciary is trained and experienced in applying to the facts and circumstances of a particular case.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526774\" data-originallang=\"en\">My colleague pointed out an anomaly that existed prior to the introduction of the charter of rights and talked about this matter being debated when he was in law school. It was also the law when I was in law school that there was a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for the importation of as much as a single marijuana cigarette. Someone coming across the border between the United States and Canada would be guilty, therefore, of importing marijuana into Canada and, upon conviction, the judge would have no choice but to impose a sentence of seven years imprisonment. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526775\" data-originallang=\"en\">It was a matter of great consternation among law students in my day that there would be this manifest injustice in our law, that this was something that our law could contemplate, and yet individuals had been sentenced to seven years in jail for very minor offences, particularly when one thinks of the times when it was very common for people to go back and forth across the border. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526776\" data-originallang=\"en\">My colleague from <a data-HoCid=\"128527\" href=\"/politicians/joe-comartin/\" title=\"Joe Comartin\">Windsor\u2014Tecumseh</a> talked about the border between Windsor and Detroit where people go back and forth as a matter of course on an ongoing daily basis. Importation of that particular drug was a simple matter of people having a marijuana cigarette in their pockets, which would bring about a sentence of seven years imprisonment. People's lives were ruined by that law.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526777\" data-originallang=\"en\">It was only the coming into law of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allowed a court to determine that this kind of penalty for that kind of offence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and was declared to be contrary to the then new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We should not have to have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have sensible laws. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526778\" data-originallang=\"en\">What we are seeing here, though, is the bringing about of new laws to provide mandatory minimum sentences when the current law is adequate. Why do I say it is adequate? It is adequate because the punishment fits the crime whereas mandatory minimum sentences do not bring about a system where the punishment fits the crime or the punishment is fair.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526779\" data-originallang=\"en\">The American Bar Association Justice Kennedy commission in 2004 called on Congress to repeal mandatory minimum sentences saying that they tend to be tough on the wrong people. What that means is the people who are receiving the mandatory minimum sentences are not the people who need to be severely punished for their crimes.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526780\" data-originallang=\"en\">The United States has a lot of mandatory minimum sentences for crimes, including drug offences. What the United States sentencing commission concluded, and this is the Kennedy commission we are talking about, was that mandatory minimum sentences failed to deter crime and reported that only 11% of federal drug defendants were high level drug dealers, 59% of crack defendants were street level drug dealers, and 5% of defendants were high level crack dealers. In other words, the people who were getting nailed by the mandatory minimum sentences and filling up the jails in the United States were the small-time operators, the street-level operators, not the people who were the major drug dealers, the ones who, our government says, this bill is aimed at.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526781\" data-originallang=\"en\">We are going to see the same thing happen here in Canada and I know the member for <a data-HoCid=\"128244\" href=\"/politicians/brent-rathgeber/\" title=\"Brent Rathgeber\">Edmonton\u2014St. Albert</a> also, I think, accepted that this might not have the right kind of effect, that it might not actually get the people we want.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526782\" data-originallang=\"en\">So, we do have a problem with it for that reason, too, that it would not be a fair system. It would not comply with the needs for reduction in crime. This was the conclusion of our justice department in 2002.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526783\" data-originallang=\"en\">Members might say that was seven years ago, that we have better evidence now. In fact, no evidence was presented to the committee, or to this House, to indicate and show that mandatory minimum sentences would in fact deter or influence drug consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable way.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526784\" data-originallang=\"en\">This is what the Department of Justice said in 2002 and I will quote it once again for members who are listening and for those watching the proceedings on CPAC:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"1526785\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Mandatory minimum sentences do not appear to influence drug consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable way. A variety of research methods concludes that treatment-based approaches are more cost effective than lengthy prison terms. MMS are blunt instruments that fail to distinguish between low and high-level, as well as hardcore versus transient drug dealers. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"1526786\" data-originallang=\"en\">In other words, the supposed targets of these crimes, the kingpins, those who are involved heavily in organized crime, would be in the best position to negotiate lighter sentences and no-sentence deals with prosecutors, and in fact would not be affected by mandatory minimum sentences.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526787\" data-originallang=\"en\">The problem is that it would move totally away from a rational, reasonable approach to dealing with drugs and the lack of an adequate drug strategy for this country.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526788\" data-originallang=\"en\">There was an approach that was recognized as being valuable, a more balanced approach, the so-called four pillar approach, dealing with prevention, treatment, harm reduction and, yes, enforcement. Enforcement is extremely important. Unfortunately, the reality that has transpired in terms of what effort is being directed toward these four pillars is not a balanced approach. We are spending 30 times more on enforcement than we are on prevention. Drug prevention programs in this country account for 2.6% of the expenditure in relation to our drug strategy; whereas enforcement accounts for 73%. That shows that the priorities are wrong. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526789\" data-originallang=\"en\">We want to reduce drug consumption in this country. We want to deter crime. We want to protect our citizens. That is the whole purpose: to protect the public, young people especially, and all those in our communities who could be harmed by the use of these harmful and addictive substances. However, we need to have a balanced approach, not the approach that has been adopted, that of having mandatory minimum sentences, which has been determined would not work.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526790\" data-originallang=\"en\">Witnesses coming before Parliament, the 2 or 3 people out of the 16 who supported mandatory minimum sentences were asked to provide evidence or point to any study that would show that mandatory minimum sentence for drugs would be effective in deterring the use of drugs or the trafficking of drugs.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526791\" data-originallang=\"en\">Not one person was able to show it was aware of any study. Here is a question that was asked. Has any study been found? I only want one that demonstrates that minimum prison sentences are good, correct and that they help with rehabilitation. Could someone answer that question? I would greatly appreciate it. Apparently, there is not. Witnesses were asked, but these did not come forward.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526792\" data-originallang=\"en\">The majority of the witnesses that came before the committee wanted to scrap Bill <a data-HoCid=\"3686569\" href=\"/bills/40-2/C-15/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts\">C-15</a>. Academics, lawyers, professors specializing in criminology, drug policy and psychology, a former judge, front line community workers and the criminal law branch of the Canadian Bar Association made up of defence council and prosecutors across the country said quite definitively that they did not believe the bill was effective. They believed it would be costly and ineffective and that it would not deter crime.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526793\" data-originallang=\"en\">The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the John Howard Society, a national organization working with prisoners in the criminal justice system for over 100 years, are extremely interested in rehabilitation and criminal law matters. They are opposed to this because of the effects it would have on our system. We also have the benefit of the experience of our neighbours to the south, because they have had 30 years experience with mandatory minimum sentences. Their experience goes back a long time and they have dealt with drug sentences of significance. They are now looking the other way and starting to change their approach.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526794\" data-originallang=\"en\">The American experts also oppose the effectiveness of this method of dealing with drug use and the pervasive, unfortunate and seriously criminally wrong trafficking of drugs. We already have laws that are doing the job of ensuring that people who are charged and convicted of drug trafficking have a sentence that is appropriate to the crime they have committed, to the circumstances and to the danger to society involved.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526795\" data-originallang=\"en\">We hear the other side talking about the victims of drug crimes. We are well aware of these. Not only that, we are well aware that the judge who is sentencing in a situation like that will have those facts and circumstances before him or her and will use those powers to increase the sentence in any particular case.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526796\" data-originallang=\"en\">We have had debate here today, indicating the extreme high cost, the effect on our correction system and the fact that there is zero proof that the bill will be effective in reducing crime or deterring the use and consumption of drugs, yet the bill is still before the House. I ask hon. members who plan to support the bill to change their minds and recognize that an evidence-based approach to legislation and public policy should be the order of the day and not some simple ideological approach, which seems to be behind the bill.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"1526772\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, avant la p\u00e9riode des questions, je parlais du projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"3686569\" href=\"/bills/40-2/C-15/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts\">C-15</a> qui \u00e9tablit des peines minimales obligatoires pour certaines infractions li\u00e9es \u00e0 la drogue, infractions qui, pour la plupart, sont d\u00e9j\u00e0 passibles de l'emprisonnement \u00e0 vie.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526773\" data-originallang=\"en\">On retire aux magistrats la discr\u00e9tion qu'ils exer\u00e7aient depuis des d\u00e9cennies au Canada en mati\u00e8re d'infractions li\u00e9es \u00e0 la drogue, avec certaines exceptions, comme l'a signal\u00e9 tout \u00e0 l'heure mon coll\u00e8gue de <a data-HoCid=\"128527\" href=\"/politicians/joe-comartin/\" title=\"Joe Comartin\">Windsor\u2014Tecumseh</a>. Pourtant, il y a pour la plupart des infractions li\u00e9es \u00e0 la drogue tout un \u00e9ventail de peines que ces magistrats exp\u00e9riment\u00e9s sont habitu\u00e9s \u00e0 doser selon le contexte de chaque affaire.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526774\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mon coll\u00e8gue a parl\u00e9 d'une anomalie qui datait d'avant la Charte des droits et a racont\u00e9 que cela faisait l'objet de tout un d\u00e9bat quand il faisait son droit. Quand j'ai moi-m\u00eame fait mon droit, la loi stipulait encore que l'importation d'une seule cigarette de marijuana entra\u00eenait une peine minimale obligatoire de sept ans. Quelqu'un qui passait ainsi la fronti\u00e8re en provenance des \u00c9tats-Unis se trouvait donc coupable d'avoir import\u00e9 de la marijuana au Canada et, \u00e0 partir de cette d\u00e9claration de culpabilit\u00e9, le juge n'avait pas le choix, il devait le condamner \u00e0 sept ans de prison.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526775\" data-originallang=\"en\">Les \u00e9tudiants en droit de mon \u00e9poque \u00e9taient constern\u00e9s par cette injustice flagrante de notre droit, constern\u00e9s qu'une telle chose puisse \u00eatre envisag\u00e9e dans la loi, et pourtant des gens se faisaient condamner \u00e0 sept ans de prison pour des infractions insignifiantes, surtout quand on pense qu'\u00e0 l'\u00e9poque bien des gens franchissaient \u00e0 tout propos la fronti\u00e8re.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526776\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mon coll\u00e8gue de <a data-HoCid=\"128527\" href=\"/politicians/joe-comartin/\" title=\"Joe Comartin\">Windsor\u2014Tecumseh</a> a parl\u00e9 de la fronti\u00e8re entre Windsor et D\u00e9troit que des quantit\u00e9s de gens traversent de fa\u00e7on banale tous les jours. Mais il suffisait que quelqu'un ait une cigarette de marijuana dans la poche pour qu'il soit accus\u00e9 d'importer cette drogue et condamn\u00e9 \u00e0 sept ans de prison. Il y a des gens dont la vie a \u00e9t\u00e9 bris\u00e9e par cette loi. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526777\" data-originallang=\"en\">C'est seulement quand la Charte des droits et libert\u00e9s a \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9e que les tribunaux ont pu \u00e9tablir que cette sanction pour une telle infraction \u00e9tait un ch\u00e2timent cruel et inusit\u00e9 et d\u00e9clarer qu'elle contrevenait \u00e0 la nouvelle Charte des droits et libert\u00e9s. On ne devrait pas avoir besoin d'une charte des droits et libert\u00e9s pour avoir des lois raisonnables.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526778\" data-originallang=\"en\">Or, le gouvernement propose de nouvelles lois pour imposer des peines minimales obligatoires, m\u00eame si les lois actuelles sont ad\u00e9quates. Pourquoi dis-je qu'elles sont ad\u00e9quates? Parce que les peines sont \u00e9tablies en fonction des crimes, contrairement au syst\u00e8me injuste des peines minimales obligatoires.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526779\" data-originallang=\"en\">En 2004, la commission du juge Kennedy du barreau am\u00e9ricain a demand\u00e9 au Congr\u00e8s d'abroger les peines minimales obligatoires parce qu'elles tendent \u00e0 punir s\u00e9v\u00e8rement les mauvaises personnes. Cela signifie que ceux \u00e0 qui on impose les peines minimales obligatoires ne sont pas ceux qui doivent \u00eatre punis s\u00e9v\u00e8rement pour leurs crimes.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526780\" data-originallang=\"en\">Aux \u00c9tats-Unis, le syst\u00e8me pr\u00e9voit beaucoup de peines minimales obligatoires, notamment pour les infractions li\u00e9es aux drogues. La commission charg\u00e9e d'examiner la d\u00e9termination de la peine aux \u00c9tats-Unis, celle pr\u00e9sid\u00e9e par le juge Kennedy, a conclu que les peines minimales obligatoires n'avaient pas d'effet dissuasif, que seulement 11 p. 100 des contrevenants aux lois f\u00e9d\u00e9rales sur les drogues \u00e9taient des trafiquants de haut niveau, que 59 p. 100 des contrevenants dans une affaire li\u00e9e au crack \u00e9taient des revendeurs de rue, et que 5 p. 100 des contrevenants \u00e9taient des trafiquants de crack de haut niveau. Autrement dit, ceux qui se font imposer des peines minimales obligatoires et qui remplissent les prisons am\u00e9ricaines sont les petits criminels de bas niveau, les revendeurs de rue, pas les grands trafiquants que notre gouvernement pr\u00e9tend cibler.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526781\" data-originallang=\"en\">La m\u00eame chose se produira au Canada, et je sais que le d\u00e9put\u00e9 d'<a data-HoCid=\"128244\" href=\"/politicians/brent-rathgeber/\" title=\"Brent Rathgeber\">Edmonton\u2014St. Albert</a> se doute que ce projet de loi n'aura probablement pas l'effet souhait\u00e9, qu'il ne nous permettra pas d'atteindre les gens que nous voulons coffrer.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526782\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nous nous opposons donc au projet de loi parce qu'il cr\u00e9erait un syst\u00e8me injuste et qu'il ne ferait rien pour r\u00e9duire la criminalit\u00e9. C'est la conclusion tir\u00e9e par notre minist\u00e8re de la Justice en 2002.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526783\" data-originallang=\"en\">On pourrait dire que cela remonte \u00e0 sept ans, que nous avons de meilleures donn\u00e9es maintenant. Pourtant, ni le comit\u00e9, ni la Chambre n'a pu examiner de donn\u00e9es permettant de conclure que les peines minimales obligatoires auraient un effet dissuasif ou une influence mesurable sur la toxicomanie ou les crimes li\u00e9s aux drogues.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526784\" data-originallang=\"en\">C'est ce que le minist\u00e8re de la Justice a conclu en 2002. Je vais r\u00e9p\u00e9ter la citation pour les d\u00e9put\u00e9s et pour tous ceux qui nous regardent sur les ondes de CPAC:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"1526785\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Les peines minimales obligatoires ne semblent avoir aucun effet quantifiable sur la consommation de drogue ou les infractions li\u00e9es \u00e0 la drogue. Des recherches men\u00e9es selon diverses m\u00e9thodes ont conclu que les approches bas\u00e9es sur le traitement sont plus rentables que les longues peines d'emprisonnement. Les PMO sont des instruments peu pr\u00e9cis qui ne font pas la diff\u00e9rence entre les d\u00e9linquants selon leur niveau dans la hi\u00e9rarchie du trafic ni selon le caract\u00e8re permanent ou intermittent de leur participation \u00e0 cette activit\u00e9. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"1526786\" data-originallang=\"en\">Autrement dit, les personnes suppos\u00e9ment vis\u00e9es par ces peines minimales obligatoires, les barons de la drogue, les t\u00eates dirigeantes du crime organis\u00e9, sont les mieux plac\u00e9es pour n\u00e9gocier des all\u00e9gements ou des suppressions de peines avec les procureurs. En fait, elles ne seraient pas touch\u00e9es par les peines minimales obligatoires.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526787\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le probl\u00e8me, c'est que cette approche est diam\u00e9tralement oppos\u00e9e \u00e0 une approche rationnelle, raisonnable, pour lutter contre les drogues. Elle met en fait en lumi\u00e8re l'absence de strat\u00e9gie antidrogue ad\u00e9quate dans ce pays.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526788\" data-originallang=\"en\">Une approche a \u00e9t\u00e9 reconnue valable, une approche plus \u00e9quilibr\u00e9e, soit l'approche dite des quatre piliers, qui comprend la pr\u00e9vention, le traitement, l'application de la loi et la r\u00e9duction des m\u00e9faits. Le volet d'application de la loi est extr\u00eamement important. Malheureusement, dans les faits, l'approche dite des quatre piliers n'est pas mise en oeuvre de fa\u00e7on \u00e9quilibr\u00e9e. En effet, nous d\u00e9pensons 30 fois plus au titre de l'application de la loi que de la pr\u00e9vention. Les programmes de pr\u00e9vention de la toxicomanie dans ce pays repr\u00e9sentent 2,6 p. 100 des d\u00e9penses de notre strat\u00e9gie antidrogue. L'application de la loi repr\u00e9sente 73 p. 100. Cela montre \u00e0 l'\u00e9vidence que nos priorit\u00e9s sont mal d\u00e9finies.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526789\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nous voulons r\u00e9duire la consommation de drogues dans ce pays. Nous voulons pr\u00e9venir le crime. Nous voulons prot\u00e9ger les citoyens. C'est l\u00e0 notre objectif d'ensemble, c'est-\u00e0-dire prot\u00e9ger le public, en particulier les jeunes, et tous les membres de nos collectivit\u00e9s qui pourraient souffrir de la consommation de ces substances dangereuses qui cr\u00e9ent une d\u00e9pendance. Cependant, il nous faut une approche \u00e9quilibr\u00e9e, mais pas celle qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9e et qui pr\u00e9voit des peines minimales obligatoires, car il a \u00e9t\u00e9 prouv\u00e9 qu'elles ne fonctionnent pas. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526790\" data-originallang=\"en\">Parmi les 16 t\u00e9moins qui ont comparu devant le Parlement \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, il y en avait deux ou trois qui appuyaient les peines minimales obligatoires. On leur a demand\u00e9 de prouver ce qu'ils avan\u00e7aient ou de citer au moins une \u00e9tude d\u00e9montrant que les peines minimales obligatoires pour les infractions li\u00e9es aux drogues permettaient effectivement de d\u00e9courager la consommation ou le trafic de drogues. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526791\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Aucune de ces personnes n\u2019a pu citer une seule \u00e9tude. Voici la question qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 pos\u00e9e. Avez-vous trouv\u00e9 des \u00e9tudes sur le sujet? Je demande seulement \u00e0 en voir une seule qui d\u00e9montre que les peines de prison minimums sont une bonne chose et qu\u2019elles facilitent la r\u00e9insertion. Quelqu\u2019un pourrait-il r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 cette question? Je l\u2019appr\u00e9cierais vivement. Apparemment, il n\u2019y en a pas. On a pos\u00e9 la question aux t\u00e9moins, mais ils n\u2019ont pas pu citer d\u2019\u00e9tudes.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526792\" data-originallang=\"en\"> La majorit\u00e9 des t\u00e9moins qui ont comparu devant le comit\u00e9, voulaient qu\u2019on laisse tomber le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"3686569\" href=\"/bills/40-2/C-15/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts\">C-15</a>. Des universitaires, des avocats, des professeurs sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9s en criminologie, en politique \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de la drogue et en psychologie, un ancien juge, des travailleurs communautaires de premi\u00e8re ligne et la Section de droit p\u00e9nal de l\u2019Association du Barreau canadien, qui est compos\u00e9e d\u2019avocats de la d\u00e9fense et de procureurs des quatre coins du pays, ont d\u00e9clar\u00e9 cat\u00e9goriquement qu\u2019ils ne croyaient pas en l\u2019efficacit\u00e9 du projet de loi. Ils estimaient qu\u2019il serait co\u00fbteux et inefficace et qu\u2019il n\u2019aurait pas d\u2019effet dissuasif.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526793\" data-originallang=\"en\"> L\u2019Association canadienne des libert\u00e9s civiles et la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 John Howard, un organisme national qui travaille aupr\u00e8s des prisonniers dans le syst\u00e8me de justice criminelle depuis plus de 100 ans, s\u2019int\u00e9ressent \u00e9norm\u00e9ment \u00e0 la r\u00e9insertion et aux questions de droit p\u00e9nal. Elles s\u2019opposent \u00e0 cette mesure \u00e0 cause des effets qu\u2019elle aurait sur notre syst\u00e8me. Nous pouvons \u00e9galement tirer la le\u00e7on de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience de nos voisins du Sud, car cela fait 30 ans qu\u2019ils appliquent les peines minimales obligatoires. Ils ont une longue exp\u00e9rience et ils ont impos\u00e9 de lourdes peines. Ils regardent maintenant dans une autre direction et commencent \u00e0 modifier leur politique.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526794\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Les experts am\u00e9ricains contestent \u00e9galement l\u2019efficacit\u00e9 de cette m\u00e9thode pour lutter contre la consommation de drogue et le trafic de stup\u00e9fiants qui est une activit\u00e9 criminelle r\u00e9pandue, r\u00e9pr\u00e9hensible et grave. Nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 des lois qui permettent d\u2019imposer aux personnes reconnues coupables de trafic de drogue une peine proportionn\u00e9e au crime qu\u2019elles ont commis, aux circonstances et au danger que cela repr\u00e9sente pour la soci\u00e9t\u00e9.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526795\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Nous entendons les d\u00e9put\u00e9s d\u2019en face parler des victimes de la criminalit\u00e9 reli\u00e9e \u00e0 la drogue. Nous sommes tr\u00e8s conscients de cet aspect du probl\u00e8me. Nous savons \u00e9galement fort bien que le juge qui impose une peine dans ce genre de situation a les faits et les circonstances sous les yeux et qu\u2019il se servira de ses pouvoirs pour alourdir la sentence dans les cas particuliers.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1526796\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Nous avons tenu un d\u00e9bat, ici aujourd\u2019hui, qui a mis en lumi\u00e8re le co\u00fbt extr\u00eamement \u00e9lev\u00e9 de cette mesure, de ses r\u00e9percussions sur le syst\u00e8me correctionnel et le fait que nous n\u2019avons aucune preuve qu\u2019elle r\u00e9ussira \u00e0 r\u00e9duire la criminalit\u00e9 ou \u00e0 diminuer la consommation de drogue, et pourtant ce projet de loi est encore \u00e0 l'\u00e9tude \u00e0 la Chambre. Je demande aux d\u00e9put\u00e9s qui comptent l\u2019appuyer de changer d\u2019avis et de reconna\u00eetre qu\u2019il faut l\u00e9gif\u00e9rer en s\u2019appuyant sur des donn\u00e9es probantes et non pas seulement sur l\u2019id\u00e9ologie, contrairement \u00e0 ce qui semble avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 fait dans le cas de ce projet de loi.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2009/6/4/jack-harris-3/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/jack-harris/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1063/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "2810493",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Controlled Drugs and Substances Act",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2009/6/4/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2009%2F6%2F4%2F"
    }
}